[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1993, Book I)]
[March 13, 1993]
[Pages 291-296]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 291]]


Interview With the Connecticut Media
March 13, 1993

East Coast Winter Storm

    The President. I'm sorry I'm a little late, but I'm trying to make 
sure we're doing what we need to do about the storm, which, as you know, 
is moving up the coast with winds very heavy now in the South Carolina 
area. And the center of the storm is projected to reach here as late as 
7 o`clock tonight, so it will come to you sometime in the middle of the 
night. And we're working hard, but I wanted to get an update and see 
what FEMA was doing. And we're going to be talking today about what 
other resources we ought to make available.
    I think the only thing I would say is that we have shared all the 
information we have with all the State governments involved, and I think 
people should simply exercise caution, because it's easy to go from what 
seems to be a nice big snowstorm to these very rapid winds. And the more 
you can keep telling people when the winds are coming, I think the 
better off we'll be. Once you get north of Washington, most people are 
fairly well-prepared for heavy doses of snow, even if it's the biggest 
they've had in years. But the winds are of great concern. Whatever you 
can do to make sure your people know that there are winds coming--and 
unless this storm dissipates, that can be serious; that would call for 
them to exercise great caution as the center of the storm approaches, 
which will be sometime late, late tonight for you--I'd appreciate it. 
Questions?

Defense Conversion

    Q. Yes, sir. Can we talk about the defense cutbacks in Connecticut?
    The President. Sure.
    Q. You have a $1.7 billion plan for retraining and dual use 
technology. You've got $350 billion set aside for FY '93. I guess the 
bottom line is, when we hear in Connecticut, for example Pratt & 
Whitney, they're going to be laying off 7,000 people, sir, for people 
that are facing unemployment, the people who are unemployed, when are 
they going to see some of that money come to them this year? And is the 
infrastructure already in place to see that those industries are 
targeted that need it and the money gets there?
    The President. Well, let's back up a minute. The Congress 
appropriated this money months and months and months ago. There was a 
big debate, and the previous administration basically didn't believe 
that this was a big problem, so they never released any of the money. In 
the last few weeks, we have worked very hard to put together a plan that 
would release over $1 billion this year in defense conversion.
    In addition to that, let me just say, apropos of the Connecticut 
economy specifically, if the Congress passes the stimulus plan that I 
have recommended to try to jumpstart the economies of the States with 
high unemployment rates, Connecticut should receive about $118 million, 
just out of the stimulus package, in funds for community development 
block grants and Federal highway construction and clean water and clean 
drinking water efforts and urban transit money. So all that will be 
coming into the State, and obviously that will create a lot of jobs. 
Some of those jobs will be created in the same areas where the defense 
jobs have been lost.
    Now, to go back to your original question, we're going to move the 
job training money, the community assistance money, and the new 
technology money as quickly as we can. By and large, in most States 
there is a retraining infrastructure which will accommodate it. The 
infrastructure we need to create, frankly, is to make sure there's a 
good partnership between the Defense Department, the Commerce 
Department, and all the other Federal Agencies and communities, so that 
communities can take money and begin immediately planning to generate 
new jobs. And we need a better partnership between the Government and 
the private contractors to make sure that they have as much lead time as 
possible to plan to put new technologies into effect or to take their 
defense technologies and convert them into commercial products.
    I'm sure all of you saw the press when I went to Baltimore to the 
Westinghouse plant. To assist in that regard, we're going to do two 
things. First, we've got all the Federal Agencies involved to put 
together a book which can be made available to every defense contractor 
in America, which shows the resources and the efforts that can be made 
by the Advanced Re-


[[Page 292]]

search Products Agency, the Commerce Department, the Energy Department, 
which controls the Federal labs where a lot of this research is done, 
the Defense Department, NASA, and others.
    Secondly, we're going to go out across the country now and hold 
meetings that are literal workshops for defense contractors to try to 
get them involved in this process before the contracts run out. The 
thing that has bothered me about this all along is that these contracts 
have been canceled, and then someone comes along and says, well, why 
don't you think of something else to do? So what we're going to try to 
do is to develop an ongoing relationship with defense contractors which 
will permit them to plan for conversion, even as they're still producing 
whatever products they're contracted to produce by the Defense 
Department. And this whole thing has to be coordinated in a much more 
disciplined fashion than it has been in the past. And that's why I've 
set up this defense conversion group, to do.
    Let me just make one other point, since the Department of Defense 
yesterday announced another round of base closings and realignments, 
which would be modest compared to the contracting losses you've had. 
There would be a reduction of 2200 jobs in Connecticut around the 
submarine operations. Here is the dilemma for us--and I want to just put 
that out here so you will be able to evaluate what happens in the 
future. We've had two rounds of base closings so far. They've been 
fairly modest. And this announcement from the Pentagon was pretty big. 
And there will be another one in 1995. Keep in mind, all these bases 
that were on that list, even if the commission approves them for closing 
or realignment, they won't be closed for 3 to 5 years. That gives us 
real time to plan, if we do it. If we really have an aggressive plan, it 
gives us time to plan the futures of the men and women in uniform who 
may be mustered out. It gives us time to plan for the futures of the 
communities and the civilian employees.
    Let me ask you to consider what happens when you don't do this. On 
the plan we're on now, if we don't close any more bases, we will have by 
1997 reduced defense by 40 percent, personnel in uniform by 35 percent, 
overseas deployments by 56 percent, and base structure by 9 percent. 
Now, what does that mean to Connecticut? It means that if you--because 
of the incredible difficulty of closing domestic bases, it means if you 
don't close any of them and you have this defense budget going down, 
that means more reductions in contracts. It means it hurts the plants 
and where the high-tech production is done even more.
    One of the reasons that we have to close some more bases is, with a 
reduced Armed Forces at the end of the cold war, we have got to maintain 
a very, very high level of technological superiority and military 
readiness, which means we still are going to have a very significant 
amount of military contracts out there in high technology areas. But you 
could argue that over the long run, the States that have a lot of the 
plants that do this work, like Connecticut, California, and others, 
would be better off if we can exercise the discipline to close the bases 
in a way that is humane and fair and economically advantageous. So 
that's what we're trying to do.

Sea Wolf Submarine Program

    Q. Mr. President, John Baxter from Associated Press. As you know, 
I'm sure, part of your reputation in Connecticut regarding defense stems 
from your comments during the campaign in support of the Sea Wolf, and 
I'm sure you know what an important program that is in terms of jobs up 
there. I wonder if I could ask you if you could tell us at this point 
what your plans are for the Sea Wolf, and more generally, what your 
comments to the people of Connecticut would be now that we're beyond the 
campaign and into the administration and defense spending is going down 
sharply?
    The President. Well, you remember what my position was on the Sea 
Wolf, which is that I thought at least one more ship should be completed 
than the administration said, and then we should, in effect, transform 
the operation to produce a smaller follow-on ship. That is what I 
believed, and interestingly enough, that's what I was advised by the 
people with whom I was consulting back in 1991 was the best policy. 
Contrary to a lot of the things which were written in and out of 
Connecticut, it didn't have much to do with the Connecticut primary. I 
didn't even know if I'd be politically alive in the Connecticut primary 
in November and December of 1991 when we were trying to evaluate these 
decisions. I see no reason in my own mind to change that position.
    Now, what we are doing now with the De-


[[Page 293]]

fense Department--let me tell you what we have to face. What we are 
doing now is to try to see what our options are for proceeding both with 
contracts and with personnel, with the new budget targets we're going to 
be required to meet. I'm hopeful that both the Senate and the House will 
adopt my defense budget cuts without cutting them anymore. And if so, 
then we may be able to pursue the course that I outlined in the 
campaign.
    But let me tell you, there is one other problem. I just want to make 
you aware of this, and we won't know exactly what the end of it is 
until, oh, about 2 weeks from now. The budget that the Department of 
Defense has that was approved by the last Congress includes several 
billions of dollars in management savings in the Department of Defense 
which the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Cheney, offered and which the 
Congress accepted, which are now being questioned. That is, it's now 
being questioned about whether these management savings are real. And a 
special committee has been appointed to review the budget and to see 
whether or not, in effect, the Congress has approved a cut which can't 
be realized simply by reorganizing the Defense Department in management 
savings. We were advised to put another $10 billion in reduction on our 
defense budget at the end of this cycle, in fiscal year '97, as a hedge 
against the fact that as much as $30 billion of those management savings 
by FY '97 may not be real.
    Now, let me tell you what that means practically since we're all 
committed to certain deficit reduction targets. What that means is that 
if these management savings which the Congress has already budgeted for 
from the previous administration don't turn out to be real, we'll have a 
very serious question to address. I am resisting further cuts in 
defense, apart from the $10 billion extra one I agreed to try to absorb 
at the end of this process. But I just want you to be aware of the fact 
that that is out there and that this is sort of an ongoing debate in-
house here. We're trying to figure out--the Secretary of Defense is 
working with the services to see what they believe we should do and to 
work out the best possible result.
    Q. But the Sea Wolf question relating to this upcoming budget 
remains an open question until notice----
    The President. I think it is an open question, but I haven't changed 
my position on it. But I cannot tell you it's a lock-cinch deal because 
of what's happened, because of this--this is sort of a wild card for 
us--and because I'm obviously involved with the Congress now in trying 
to work through this.
    Q. Brian Thomas at WTIC in Hartford. General Dynamics as a 
corporation, producer of the Sea Wolf, as you know, openly is not 
embracing the dual use concept. They are staying with defense as a 
livelihood. Is this kind of approach in your view something that's 
viable, given this situation we have now, or will they sign on to this 
eventually?
    The President. Well, it depends. Let me say what I mean by that. It 
depends on what General Dynamics or any other kind of company in this 
position projects will be the future demand for defense products that 
they can produce. Let me give you an example. For example, Sikorsky in 
Connecticut and another one of your helicopter companies I think is up 
in employment. And a lot of our allies may well be buying more short-
haul aircraft and may be buying more helicopters in the future for more 
limited and different kinds of military operations. So there's no 
question that some military contractors will be able to continue to 
fully--or almost all military contractors--and do well. And there will 
be some things where the demand for products will actually increase. We, 
the United States, will be buying some new military products and 
technology that we have not purchased in the past. So some people will 
be there.
    On the other hand, with the overall budget going down and, 
therefore, with both the size of the Armed Forces and at least the 
guaranteed replacement of old products being less, a number of these 
defense contractors are going to have to look for alternative products. 
And I don't know enough about what General Dynamics' options are to know 
whether that's the right or the wrong decision. All I can tell you is 
that we're prepared to assist with joint research and development 
efforts and everything else in our power. We're prepared to assist those 
companies that are serious about converting. The Westinghouse plant--let 
me just tell you, the one in Maryland I visited--5 years ago was 16 
percent nondefense. Today it's 27 percent nondefense. By 1995 it'll be 
50-plus percent nondefense. And what I think you're going to see--I'll 
just make a prediction where I think you're going to see in many areas--
is a kind

[[Page 294]]

of a blending where the defense-nondefense line is regularly crossed and 
where the technology is being used for both civilian and military 
purposes. For example, at Westinghouse we saw some things making full 
circle. We saw military technology producing a civilian product; then we 
saw civilian technology being marketed back to the military for the 
first time. So I think that this will become a blurry line.
    Now, submarines have few uses other than military. I mean, it's hard 
to imagine--you know, maybe some weather uses there, maybe nonmilitary 
uses for submarines in the environmental area, particularly around the 
poles and other things. But I just think--I wish I could give you a yes 
or no answer, but I'd have to know more about what their options are and 
what they project the products to be.
    Q. When you say completion of another submarine, are you talking 
about the third or the second, since the second hasn't really started 
yet? And if the submarine fleet is to be reduced to 40 to 45 submarines, 
when do you envision funding for the next generation and what would it 
look like?
    The President. I can't answer that yet because that's one of the 
things we have under review. But I will be glad to try to get you an 
answer from the Defense Department as quickly as I can. The last time I 
had a conversation about this, there was a general consensus that the 
design of the Sea Wolf was not necessary in terms of its size, bulk, 
given a declining Soviet threat and breathtaking drops in production 
there for their own capacity, but that we still needed and, in fact, 
were quite dependent on submarine technology to maintain our overall 
military superiority, but that there ought to be one designed that was 
smaller and quicker and could do more different things. And so we're 
working on that. But I don't have--I can't answer the specifics you've 
asked.

Russia

    Q. [Inaudible]--the developments in the former Soviet Union right 
now with Boris Yeltsin, and how does that fit into your accounting 
strategy for defense?
    The President. Well, obviously, we're all concerned about it. But, 
you know, I don't think you could have ever predicted an easy ride for 
democracy and for a market economy in a country which had never had a 
market economy and which had the courage to try to seek democracy at the 
same time. So I view all these things with--I'm interested in it, I'm 
concerned about it, but as far as I'm concerned, he is still the only 
person who's been elected President of the country, and I believe he 
genuinely believes in economic reforms and political democracy. And I 
think we should support that. And I'm going to do what I can to be 
supportive.
    I think that if the major countries, the G-7 countries that are in a 
position to support those movements would show a more coordinated and 
aggressive approach to the problems, it might be possible to build a 
consensus in Russia for how they would work with all of us. Every 
elected official has his or her political opponents. That's part of the 
way the system works. And an awful lot of the people that are in the 
Russian legislature were active members of the Communist Party. So you 
would expect it to be somewhat less reformist than he is. Plus a lot of 
them are responding to the cries of their own people for help. They're 
in deep trouble economically.
    My own view is there are a lot of things that can be done, that that 
country can still have a bright future as part of a peaceful coalition 
of nations in the world. And I just hope that we'll have the opportunity 
to do it. I was encouraged in my meeting with President Mitterrand that 
he seemed very willing to adopt an aggressive posture toward trying to 
do more. And I'll do the best I can to be ready on April 4th, which is 
just a few days from now, with my meeting with President Yeltsin.
    Q. Would you support him still if he suspends the Parliament? And 
also, if he calls in military force, would you support him? Also, what 
would you say to those who are saying you're relying too much on his 
survival?
    The President. Well, first of all, I don't think that it would serve 
any useful purposes for me to try to interpret the Russian constitution 
right now and what it does or doesn't mean or what we would or wouldn't 
respond to. The United States supports democracy and economic reform in 
Russia.
    Now, in terms of whether we're putting too much reliance on Yeltsin 
personally, my answer to that is, we will work with what we have to work 
with, whatever happens. But I think we should support him because he has 
been elected, after all. I mean, there was an election; the people voted 
for him. And he represents a passionate commitment to democracy and eco-


[[Page 295]]

nomic reform. And he's gotten, frankly, in my judgment, from the major 
countries of the world who have a stake, not just a political but an 
economic stake in Russia, an inadequate response to date.
    So I'm trying to do what I can to muster the support to do more, 
because I think it's very much in America's interests, and he's the 
person that I think I should work with. He is the elected President of 
Russia. That is a fact. And I hope he will continue to be the elected 
President of Russia. But the United States has an interest in a Russia 
that is not hostile to us, that is not a military enemy, and that, 
frankly, has a whole lot more economic growth than the Russia that we 
know does now. And I'm just trying to respond to that. I think that 
working with him is the best way to do it at this time, and I believe--
I'll say again--no one knows what's going to happen. But the man is an 
honest democrat--small ``d''--and he's passionately committed to reform. 
And I want to keep working with him.

Defense Conversion

    Q. Mr. President, diversification is a goal, but what can you do 
about the fact that so many defense manufacturers have been reluctant to 
diversify?
    The President. All I can do is to try to make sure that they have 
the maximum number of options. Let me give you an example of what 
happened yesterday, or the day before yesterday at the Westinghouse 
plant. I talked to one of the people, a woman there who was in charge of 
marketing these new products, and I said, ``Tell me what the problems 
are.'' She said, ``Well, it's not so much that we can't ever think of 
what we could do that might have a nondefense application, but most of 
us have never contracted in the private sector before. We have never 
marketed in the private sector. And we're not sure that what we think 
will work, will work.'' Basically, I think what I have to do for these 
defense contractors is to try to create, through the enormous resources 
that the Federal Government has invested in them over time and has 
invested in technology research, an environment in which they can at 
least visualize and imagine all the potential that might be there and 
then the opportunity they have to make the connections with the private 
sector on the civilian side. So that's what we're going to try to do. I 
just would say every defense contractor needs to think about it. The 
answer may be no in some cases, but everybody really needs to think 
about it and that the Government is going to be there in a consistent 
way to do it.
    If you look at every projection of high technology, high-wage 
employment going well into the 21st century, the technologies that are 
there are things that have often been dealt with in defense; 
biotechnology, civilian aviation, computer software. Some of the most 
sophisticated imaging in the world is done by the Defense Department. 
Now, that's the only thing I would say. There may be some products which 
are not susceptible to civilian spinoffs, but most of them are.

Legalized Gambling

    Q. I don't know if you're aware of it, but one of the things that's 
been talked about in Connecticut, to fill the gap with defense leaving, 
is casino gambling. And I wonder if you'd just share your thoughts with 
us on how you feel about legalized gambling coming to a State like 
Connecticut, if we should do it?
    The President. I'm not the best person in the world to ask about 
that because I grew up in a town that had the largest illegal gambling 
operation in America--[laughter]--when I was a kid, until it was shut 
down in the mid-sixties.
    First of all, I strongly believe it should remain a question of 
State law. That is, I don't think I should decide for you one way or the 
other--or the Congress. I think that it ought to be a local question. 
The second thing I would urge is that before you do it, you analyze very 
carefully what the benefits and the costs are, because it is not a free 
ride. That's the only thing I'll say. It is not an unmixed blessing. You 
may decide that it is, on balance, worth doing, but it is not an unmixed 
blessing. If you look at Nevada, for example, the fastest growing State 
in the country, one of the reasons they're growing fast is that they're 
diversifying away from gambling toward more broad-based convention work 
and other kinds of economic activity. So that would be my advice. Don't 
just take it at face value. And really think about it before you do it.
    Thanks.

Military Base Closings

    Q. [Inaudible]--reviewing and tinkering with

[[Page 296]]

the base closing list?
    The President. No. The Secretary of Defense had the list, and he 
made the decisions. The only thing I asked him to do was to make sure 
that he had really evaluated the economic impacts of it all. And he said 
that he would do that. The only--he made a point to me that under the 
law, the Defense Department is required to do that, and it really 
couldn't be done by the services because they made their recommendations 
based on their needs within their services. So the Air Force and the 
Army and the Navy couldn't have foreseen the cumulative impact on any 
given State of what they recommended. And that's why the Secretary of 
Defense went through the process he did. But he did it. I think it's 
very important that we leave the process in that way. And so that's what 
we did.

Note: The President spoke at 11:42 a.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White 
House.